FortFi Treasury MCP

propose_hyperliquid_perp_modify

Propose modifying an open Hyperliquid perp position: its stop-loss / take-profit and/or its leverage. Only the exit you pass is replaced: changing stopLoss keeps the resting take-profit(s), and vice versa. leverage changes the open position's leverage in place (keeps its cross / isolated mode, size unchanged). Raising leverage runs FortFi perp policy (max leverage) and the wallet loss cap; lowering it needs enough margin on Hyperliquid. Returns a proposalId for confirm_proposal.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "walletId": "<walletId>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "propose_hyperliquid_perp_modify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`symbol`	Yes
`leverage`	No	New leverage for the open position (whole number, up to the market max and the owner's policy max). Must differ from the current leverage.
`stopLoss`	No	New stop-loss trigger for the whole position. Replaces the resting stop only.
`walletId`	Yes
`takeProfit`	No	New take-profit trigger. Replaces the resting take-profit(s) only.
`takeProfitSizePercent`	No	Close only this % of the position at takeProfit (e.g. 50 to bank half at 2R and let the rest run). Default 100. The stop keeps covering the full position.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses partial-replacement semantics ('Only the exit you pass is replaced'), in-place leverage behavior preserving cross/isolated mode and size, policy and wallet loss-cap checks on raising leverage, margin requirements for lowering it, and the proposalId return. It doesn't describe failure modes or approval latency, keeping it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then progressively narrower behavioral details, and every sentence carries information. Slightly dense across four clauses but with no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers replacement semantics, policy constraints, margin requirements, and the returned proposalId, which is enough to call it correctly. Edge cases such as a missing position or the confirm/approval flow are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that stopLoss/takeProfit replace only resting exits and that leverage mutates the open position rather than resizing it. The takeProfitSizePercent interaction (stop still covers the full position) is echoed but the description doesn't fully restate it on its own.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Propose modifying an open Hyperliquid perp position') and enumerates exactly what can change (stop-loss/take-profit and/or leverage), which distinguishes it from siblings like propose_hyperliquid_perp_open and propose_hyperliquid_perp_close.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the selection logic within the tool (passing stopLoss vs takeProfit vs leverage) and points to the follow-up step via confirm_proposal. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with perp_close or perp_open for an agent deciding between tools, so not a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All FortFi Treasury MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?